Only in right-wing infotainment fantasy land. In the real world, Obama is a relatively conventional Democrat, who, like most Democrats, wants to raise taxes on the rich to roughly the Clinton-administration levels.
Maybe they will, but *deserving *to is a different topic.
Never said it would be the same magnitude.
Wrong. If the companies already canceled the plans, and they know they can’t sign any new people up, there’s a good chance they’ll just let them stay cancelled.
Gouging is in the eye of the beholder.
Absolutely. This is a pretty cynical move on the President’s part. The insurance companies have been ramping down these plans for a while knowing that on January 1, 2014, they had to change them or cancel them. So they cancelled them.
Now, in mid-November, a mere 1 1/2 months away from the purported start of the ACA, the President has told these insurance companies that they can reprogram their software, recreate insurance plans that were to be illegal, and only offer them to then-existing customers (who didn’t already get a new plan because, you know, they got a cancellation notice), and they can only be valid for one year.
I’m not in the insurance business, but that seems like an enormous amount of work for little benefit, so they likely won’t do it. Then the President gets to say, “I tried, but the greedy insurance companies wouldn’t give you your plan back. It’s their fault.”
And what’s the point of another year? Won’t we go through the same thing again in November, 2014 when people still cannot keep their plan? This law is so full of holes and unintended consequences that it absolutely needs to be scrapped, Obama’s pride notwithstanding.
And what are you going to tell to all those people with pre-existing conditions who would then actually totally and completely lose their coverage and not just have to switch to a more comprehensive plan? The roll out was mishandled, as was the presenting it to the public, but unless you’ve got an alternative in your pocket this is probably the best game in town.
Boo-friggin’-hoo.
Solving America’s worst-in-the-Western-world health care system REQUIRES disruption in order to create a superior status quo. The fact that the rollout has been wildly mishandled and that a MINORITY of people are going to experience a period of disruption DOES NOT mean that the entire law needs to be canned. A year from now all of this shit is just going to be a footnote anyway.
Deal with it.
The “fix” is a political fix for a political problem. The point is just whether it solves or reduces the political problem.
People are conflating the political problem with the policy problem. The *political *problem is the significant number of people (maybe as many as 1% of Americans) who were sold plans that were non-compliant when they bought them, and they didn’t understand this. Those plans are being canceled, and they are surprised and angry. But such plans were always going to be removed from the market except for people in them prior to passage of the ACA. That was a deliberate policy choice about which reasonable people can disagree.
The *policy *problem is that some much smaller number of people with grandfathered coverage are also losing it. The fix, by it’s express terms, has nothing to do with the policy problem.
If, a year from now, these types of problems are still rampant, you’ll simply say that the REAL fix is in another six months, and the public should just deal with it?
I’m not sure why that middle part isn’t also a “policy problem”. Just because the law was designed that way doesn’t make it good policy. And if it’s not good policy, it needs to be changed. I guess I’m seeing a bit of a false dichotomy there, depending on how one views the policy (good or bad).
I’m using the term “policy problem” to mean an unintended or unexplained consequence of the policy.
Obviously, in the eyes of some, the whole statute is a policy problem.
No its not. He didn’t plan this, he is being forced into it.
Please submit your Certificate of Precognitive Powers for our inspection.
OK. Got it.
KQED (NPR) is doing a piece right now about CA and whether or not we’ll allow Obama’s suggestion to apply here. One thing to note is that each state must decide for itself, so Obama can make all the proclamations he wants, but if the states decide not to participate, then that’s that. Then, if the states decide to allow this, the insurance companies themselves need to decide whether it makes sense for them to do it. I have a feeling we’re quite a ways away from learning what the actual state of affairs is going to be.
I fail to see how an insurance company can issue a plan that is illegal under the ACA. Obama is not supporting a legislative change, this will simply be another area where the law will be enforced selectively. The plans even if re-issued by insurance companies would still violate federal law. What insurance company would knowingly issue a plan that is illegal?
I think the law gives the DHS the authority to decide which plans can and cannot be grandfathered. So it’s a regulatory issue, and doesn’t need Congress to change the law. I think. I hope. I assume Obama is smart enough not to mix that up.
Short sell Merek, two year contract, you’re welcome.
I fight against money and power. I don’t bet against money and power.
I don’t think that’s the case. From TPM:
Apparentlythe administration is relying on Heckler v. Chaney which gives discretion in implementing regulatory regimes. I’m not entirely convinced but it sounds shaky. Of course, the only fallback would be impeachment which would be ridiculous. The first time the administration decided to not enforce a law it didn’t like I felt similarly - that choosing not to enforce laws on the books is ripe for abuse. I forget which specific issue it was, I think it had to do with provisions of DOMA. At the time I appreciated the effect, but not the method. Same thing here.
False dichotomy. 
Bone: Would anyone be motivated or have standing to challenge that in court?
Free rent, free food, free sex … dude … Jerry’s dead already, move on will’ya.